Patent Review and Derivation Proceedings, 45104-45106 [2018-19202]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45104
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices
Dated: August 28, 2018.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation is certain
on-the-road steel wheels, discs, and rims for
tubeless tires with a nominal wheel diameter
of 12 inches to 16.5 inches, regardless of
width. Certain on-the-road steel wheels with
a nominal wheel diameter of 12 inches to
16.5 inches within the scope are generally for
road and highway trailers and other towable
equipment, including, inter alia, utility
trailers, cargo trailers, horse trailers, boat
trailers, recreational trailers, and towable
mobile homes. The standard widths of
certain on-the-road steel wheels are 4 inches,
4.5 inches, 5 inches, 5.5 inches, 6 inches, and
6.5 inches, but all certain on-the-road steel
wheels, regardless of width, are covered by
the scope.
The scope includes rims and discs for
certain on-the-road steel wheels, whether
imported as an assembly, unassembled, or
separately. The scope includes certain onthe-road steel wheels regardless of steel
composition, whether cladded or not
cladded, whether finished or not finished,
and whether coated or uncoated. The scope
also includes certain on-the-road steel wheels
with discs in either a ‘‘hub-piloted’’ or ‘‘studpiloted’’ mounting configuration, though the
stud-piloted configuration is most common
in the size range covered.
All on-the-road wheels sold in the United
States must meet Standard 110 or 120 of the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s (NHTSA) Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards, which requires a
rim marking, such as the ‘‘DOT’’ symbol,
indicating compliance with applicable motor
vehicle standards. See 49 CFR 571.110 and
571.120. The scope includes certain on-theroad steel wheels imported with or without
NHTSA’s required markings.
Certain on-the-road steel wheels imported
as an assembly with a tire mounted on the
wheel and/or with a valve stem or rims
imported as an assembly with a tire mounted
on the rim and/or with a valve stem are
included in the scope of this investigation.
However, if the steel wheels or rims are
imported as an assembly with a tire mounted
on the wheel or rim and/or with a valve stem
attached, the tire and/or valve stem is not
covered by the scope.
Excluded from this scope are the following:
(1) Steel wheels for use with tube-type
tires; such tires use multi piece rims, which
are two-piece and three-piece assemblies and
require the use of an inner tube;
(2) aluminum wheels;
(3) certain on-the-road steel wheels that are
coated entirely with chrome; and
(4) steel wheels that do not meet Standard
110 or 120 of the NHTSA’s requirements
other than the rim marking requirements
found in 49 CFR 571.110S4.4.2 and
571.120S5.2.
Certain on-the-road steel wheels subject to
this investigation are properly classifiable
under the following category of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Sep 04, 2018
Jkt 244001
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS): 8716.90.5035 which covers
the exact product covered by the scope
whether entered as an assembled wheel or in
components. Certain on-the-road steel wheels
entered with a tire mounted on them may be
entered under HTSUS 8716.90.5059 (Trailers
and semi-trailers; other vehicles, not
mechanically propelled, parts, wheels, other,
wheels with other tires) (a category that will
be broader than what is covered by the
scope). While the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
subject merchandise is dispositive.
Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There
are no instruments of the same general
category manufactured in the United
States. Application accepted by
Commissioner of Customs: October 5,
2017.
Dated: August 28, 2018.
Gregory W. Campbell,
Director, Subsidies Enforcement, Enforcement
and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018–19208 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
[FR Doc. 2018–19205 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Patent and Trademark Office
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Patent Review and Derivation
Proceedings
Proposed collection; comment
Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of
Scientific Instruments
ACTION:
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.
L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–
36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we
invite comments on the question of
whether instruments of equivalent
scientific value, for the purposes for
which the instruments shown below are
intended to be used, are being
manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR
301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and
be postmarked on or before September
25, 2018. Address written comments to
Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room
3720, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC 20230. Applications
may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of
Commerce in Room 3720.
Docket Number: 17–019. Applicant:
University of California, Berkeley, 100
Hearst Memorial Mining Building,
Berkeley, CA 94720. Instrument: High
Field Cryogen-Free Measurement
System (CFMS) for Precision
Measurement of Physical Properties.
Manufacturer: Cryogenic US, LLC,
United Kingdom. Intended Use: The
instrument will be used to study thin
films of metal-oxides for advanced
oxide-based electronic devices,
magnetic and electrical properties of
oxide materials and devices at low
temperatures and/or high magnetic
fields. Angle dependent magnetoelectric
properties of the devices will be
explored on multiple axes. The
investigations done with this instrument
will lead to advancement of
understanding of the properties of
metal-oxide thin films and their
interfaces for new generation of oxidebased microelectronic devices.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
request.
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO), as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
invites comments on a proposed
extension of an existing information
collection: 0651–0069 (Patent Review
and Derivation Proceedings).
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before November 5,
2018.
You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Email: InformationCollection@
uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0069
comment’’ in the subject line of the
message.
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Mail: Michael P. Tierney, Records
and Information Governance Division
Director, Office of the Chief Technology
Officer, United States Patent and
Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313–1450.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be directed to Michael P.
Tierney, Vice Chief Administrative
Patent Judge, Patent Trial and Appeal
Board, United States Patent and
Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by
telephone at 571–272–4676; or by email
to Michael.Tierney@uspto.gov with
‘‘0651–0069 comment’’ in the subject
line. Additional information about this
collection is also available at https://
www.reginfo.gov under ‘‘Information
Collection Review.’’
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
I. Abstract
The Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act, which was enacted into law on
E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM
05SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices
September 16, 2011, provided for many
changes to the procedures of the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board (‘‘PTAB’’ or
‘‘Board’’, formerly the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences) procedures.
These changes included the
introduction of inter partes review,
post-grant review, derivation
proceedings, and the transitional
program for covered business method
patents. Under these administrative trial
proceedings, third parties may file a
petition with the PTAB challenging the
validity of issued patents, with each
proceeding having different
requirements regarding timing
restrictions, grounds for challenging
validity, and who may request review.
Inter partes review is a trial
proceeding conducted at the Board to
review the patentability of one or more
claims in a patent only on a ground that
could be raised under §§ 102 or 103, and
only on the basis of prior art consisting
of patents or printed publications. Post
grant review is a trial proceeding
conducted at the Board to review the
patentability of one or more claims in a
patent on any ground that could be
raised under § 282(b)(2) or (3). A
derivation proceeding is a trial
proceeding conducted at the Board to
determine whether (1) an inventor
IC No.
3 .....................
4 .....................
5 .....................
6 .....................
7 .....................
8 .....................
9 .....................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
II. Method of Collection
Electronically, if applicants submit
the information using the PTAB End-toEnd (PTAB E2E). Applicants may
submit information via email if PTAB
E2E is unavailable.
III. Data
OMB Number: 0651–0069.
IC Instruments and Forms: N/A.
Item
1 .....................
2 .....................
10 ...................
11 ...................
12 ...................
13 ...................
14 ...................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
named in an earlier application derived
the claimed invention from an inventor
named in the petitioner’s application,
and (2) the earlier application claiming
such invention was filed without
authorization. The transitional program
for covered business method patents is
a trial proceeding conducted at the
Board to review the patentability of one
or more claims in a covered business
method patent.
This collection covers information
submitted by the public to petition the
Board to initiate an inter partes review,
post-grant review, derivation
proceeding, and the transitional
program for covered business method
patents, as well as any responses to such
petitions, and the filing of any motions,
replies, oppositions, and other actions,
after a review/proceeding has been
instituted.
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Type of Review: Extension of an
existing information collection.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations; individuals or
households; not-for-profit institutions;
Federal Government; and state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
11,994 responses per year.
Estimated Time per Response: The
USPTO estimates that it will take the
public between an estimated 6 minutes
(0.10 hours) to 165.30 hours to complete
an individual form in this collection.
Estimated Total Annual Respondent
Burden Hours: 1,474,449 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Respondent
(Hourly) Cost Burden: $645,808,793.
The USPTO expects that attorneys will
complete the instruments associated
with this information collection. The
professional hourly rate for intellectual
property attorneys in privates firms is
$438 as established by estimates in the
2017 Report of the Economic Survey,
published by the Committee on
Economics of Legal Practice of the
American Intellectual Property Law
Association. Using this hourly rate, the
USPTO estimates that the total
respondent cost burden for this
collection is $645,808,793 per year.
Estimated
response time
(hours)
Estimated
responses
Estimated
burden hours
Rate
Estimated
cost burden
(a)
(b)
(a) × (b) = (c)
(d)
(c) × (d) = (e)
Petition for Inter Partes Review ..........
Petition for Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method Patent Review.
Petition for Derivation ..........................
Patent Owner Preliminary Response
to Petition for Initial Inter Partes Review.
Patent Owner Preliminary Response
to Petition for Initial Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method
Patent Review.
Request for Rehearing ........................
Motions, Replies, and Oppositions
After Institution in Inter Partes Review.
Motions, Replies, and Oppositions
After Institution in Post-Grant Review or Covered Business Method
Review.
Motions, Replies, and Oppositions
After Institution in Derivation Proceedings.
Request for Oral Hearing ....................
Request to Treat a Settlement as
Business Confidential.
Settlement ...........................................
Arbitration Agreement and Award .......
Request to Make a Settlement Agreement Available.
17:04 Sep 04, 2018
45105
Frm 00018
124
165.30
1,553
91
192,572.00
15,042.30
$438.00
438.00
$84,346,536.00
6,588,527.40
165.30
91.60
11
1,333
1,818.30
122,102.80
438.00
438.00
796,415.40
53,481,026.40
91.60
68
6,228.80
438.00
2,728,214.40
80
158
322
6,482
25,760.00
1,024,156.00
438.00
438.00
11,282,880.00
448,580,328.00
148
245
36,260.00
438.00
15,881,880.00
120
7
840.00
438.00
367,920.00
18.30
2
727
356
13,304.10
712.00
438.00
438.00
5,827,195.80
311,856.00
100
4
1
356
2
1
35,600.00
8.00
1.00
438.00
438.00
438.00
15,592,800.00
3,504.00
438.00
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM
05SEN1
45106
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2018 / Notices
IC No.
Item
Estimated
responses
Estimated
burden hours
Rate
Estimated
cost burden
(a)
(b)
(a) × (b) = (c)
(d)
(c) × (d) = (e)
15 ...................
Notice of Judicial Review of a Board
Decision (e.g., Notice of Appeal
Under 35 U.S.C. 142).
0.10
440
44.00
438.00
19,272.00
Total ........
..............................................................
........................
11,994
1,474,449.30
........................
645,808,793.40
Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour)
Respondent Cost Burden: $54,307,175.
There are no capital start-up,
maintenance, or postage associated with
this information collection. However,
this collection does have annual (nonhour) costs in the form of filing fees.
IC No.
1
1
1
1
2
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
Filing Fees
The filing fees associated with this
information collection are listed in the
table below:
Item
Responses
Filing fees
Total cost
(a)
(b)
(a) × (b) = (c)
1,560
1,569
3,390
1,786
92
$15,500.00
15,000.00
300.00
600.00
16,000.00
$24,180,000.00
23,535,000.00
1,017,000.00
1,071,600.00
1,472,000.00
92
22,000.00
2,024,000.00
638
375.00
239,250.00
925
825.00
763,125.00
3 .....................
14 ...................
Inter Partes Review Request Fee .................................................................
Inter Partes Post-Institution Fee ...................................................................
Inter Partes Review Request of Each Claim in Excess of 20 ......................
Inter Partes Post-Institution Request of Each Claim in Excess of 15 ..........
Post-Grant or Covered Business Method Review Request Fee—Up to 20
Claims.
Post-Grant or Covered Business Method Review Post-Institution Fee—Up
to 15 Claims.
Post-Grant or Covered Business Method Review Request of Each Claim
in Excess of 20.
Post-Grant or Covered Business Method Review Post-Institution Fee of
Each Claim in Excess of 15.
Petition for Derivation ....................................................................................
Request to Make a Settlement Agreement Available ...................................
12
1
400.00
400.00
4,800.00
400.00
Total ........
........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
54,307,175.00
2 .....................
2 .....................
2 .....................
IV. Request for Comments
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Estimated
response time
(hours)
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection.
They also will become a matter of
public record.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden (including hours
and cost) of the proposed collection of
information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on
respondents, e.g., the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Marcie Lovett,
Records and Information Governance
Division Director, OCTO United States Patent
and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2018–19202 Filed 9–4–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
Matters Related to First Inventor To
File
ACTION:
Proposed collection; comment
request.
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO), as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act, invites
comments on a proposed extension of
an existing information collection:
0651–0069 (Matters Relating to First
Inventor to File).
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
submitted on or before November 5,
2018.
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Sep 04, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Written comments may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
• Email: InformationCollection@
uspto.gov. Include ‘‘0651–0071
comment’’ in the subject line of the
message.
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Mail: Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal
Advisor, Office of Patent Legal
Administration, United States Patent
and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, VA 22313–1450.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be directed to Raul Tamayo,
Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent
Legal Administration, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450; by
telephone at 571–272–7728; or by email
to Raul.Tamayo@uspto.gov with ‘‘0651–
0071 comment’’ in the subject line.
Additional information about this
collection is also available at https://
www.reginfo.gov under ‘‘Information
Collection Review.’’
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\05SEN1.SGM
05SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45104-45106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19202]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
Patent Review and Derivation Proceedings
ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 invites comments on a
proposed extension of an existing information collection: 0651-0069
(Patent Review and Derivation Proceedings).
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 5,
2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include ``0651-
0069 comment'' in the subject line of the message.
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Mail: Michael P. Tierney, Records and Information
Governance Division Director, Office of the Chief Technology Officer,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria,
VA 22313-1450.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information
should be directed to Michael P. Tierney, Vice Chief Administrative
Patent Judge, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, United States Patent and
Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by
telephone at 571-272-4676; or by email to [email protected]
with ``0651-0069 comment'' in the subject line. Additional information
about this collection is also available at https://www.reginfo.gov under
``Information Collection Review.''
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which was enacted into law on
[[Page 45105]]
September 16, 2011, provided for many changes to the procedures of the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (``PTAB'' or ``Board'', formerly the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) procedures. These changes
included the introduction of inter partes review, post-grant review,
derivation proceedings, and the transitional program for covered
business method patents. Under these administrative trial proceedings,
third parties may file a petition with the PTAB challenging the
validity of issued patents, with each proceeding having different
requirements regarding timing restrictions, grounds for challenging
validity, and who may request review.
Inter partes review is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to
review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a
ground that could be raised under Sec. Sec. 102 or 103, and only on
the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.
Post grant review is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to
review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on any
ground that could be raised under Sec. 282(b)(2) or (3). A derivation
proceeding is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to determine
whether (1) an inventor named in an earlier application derived the
claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's
application, and (2) the earlier application claiming such invention
was filed without authorization. The transitional program for covered
business method patents is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to
review the patentability of one or more claims in a covered business
method patent.
This collection covers information submitted by the public to
petition the Board to initiate an inter partes review, post-grant
review, derivation proceeding, and the transitional program for covered
business method patents, as well as any responses to such petitions,
and the filing of any motions, replies, oppositions, and other actions,
after a review/proceeding has been instituted.
II. Method of Collection
Electronically, if applicants submit the information using the PTAB
End-to-End (PTAB E2E). Applicants may submit information via email if
PTAB E2E is unavailable.
III. Data
OMB Number: 0651-0069.
IC Instruments and Forms: N/A.
Type of Review: Extension of an existing information collection.
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations;
individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions; Federal
Government; and state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 11,994 responses per year.
Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take
the public between an estimated 6 minutes (0.10 hours) to 165.30 hours
to complete an individual form in this collection.
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 1,474,449 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Respondent (Hourly) Cost Burden:
$645,808,793. The USPTO expects that attorneys will complete the
instruments associated with this information collection. The
professional hourly rate for intellectual property attorneys in
privates firms is $438 as established by estimates in the 2017 Report
of the Economic Survey, published by the Committee on Economics of
Legal Practice of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.
Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent
cost burden for this collection is $645,808,793 per year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
IC No. Item response time Estimated Estimated Rate Estimated cost
(hours) responses burden hours burden
(a) (b) (a) x (b) = (c) (d) (c) x (d) = (e)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Petition for Inter Partes Review 124 1,553 192,572.00 $438.00 $84,346,536.00
2................................... Petition for Post-Grant Review 165.30 91 15,042.30 438.00 6,588,527.40
or Covered Business Method
Patent Review.
3................................... Petition for Derivation......... 165.30 11 1,818.30 438.00 796,415.40
4................................... Patent Owner Preliminary 91.60 1,333 122,102.80 438.00 53,481,026.40
Response to Petition for
Initial Inter Partes Review.
5................................... Patent Owner Preliminary 91.60 68 6,228.80 438.00 2,728,214.40
Response to Petition for
Initial Post-Grant Review or
Covered Business Method Patent
Review.
6................................... Request for Rehearing........... 80 322 25,760.00 438.00 11,282,880.00
7................................... Motions, Replies, and 158 6,482 1,024,156.00 438.00 448,580,328.00
Oppositions After Institution
in Inter Partes Review.
8................................... Motions, Replies, and 148 245 36,260.00 438.00 15,881,880.00
Oppositions After Institution
in Post-Grant Review or Covered
Business Method Review.
9................................... Motions, Replies, and 120 7 840.00 438.00 367,920.00
Oppositions After Institution
in Derivation Proceedings.
10.................................. Request for Oral Hearing........ 18.30 727 13,304.10 438.00 5,827,195.80
11.................................. Request to Treat a Settlement as 2 356 712.00 438.00 311,856.00
Business Confidential.
12.................................. Settlement...................... 100 356 35,600.00 438.00 15,592,800.00
13.................................. Arbitration Agreement and Award. 4 2 8.00 438.00 3,504.00
14.................................. Request to Make a Settlement 1 1 1.00 438.00 438.00
Agreement Available.
[[Page 45106]]
15.................................. Notice of Judicial Review of a 0.10 440 44.00 438.00 19,272.00
Board Decision (e.g., Notice of
Appeal Under 35 U.S.C. 142).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... ................................ .............. 11,994 1,474,449.30 .............. 645,808,793.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total Annual (Non-hour) Respondent Cost Burden:
$54,307,175. There are no capital start-up, maintenance, or postage
associated with this information collection. However, this collection
does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of filing fees.
Filing Fees
The filing fees associated with this information collection are
listed in the table below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IC No. Item Responses Filing fees Total cost
(a) (b) (a) x (b) = (c)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... Inter Partes Review Request 1,560 $15,500.00 $24,180,000.00
Fee.
1............................... Inter Partes Post-Institution 1,569 15,000.00 23,535,000.00
Fee.
1............................... Inter Partes Review Request 3,390 300.00 1,017,000.00
of Each Claim in Excess of
20.
1............................... Inter Partes Post-Institution 1,786 600.00 1,071,600.00
Request of Each Claim in
Excess of 15.
2............................... Post-Grant or Covered 92 16,000.00 1,472,000.00
Business Method Review
Request Fee--Up to 20 Claims.
2............................... Post-Grant or Covered 92 22,000.00 2,024,000.00
Business Method Review Post-
Institution Fee--Up to 15
Claims.
2............................... Post-Grant or Covered 638 375.00 239,250.00
Business Method Review
Request of Each Claim in
Excess of 20.
2............................... Post-Grant or Covered 925 825.00 763,125.00
Business Method Review Post-
Institution Fee of Each
Claim in Excess of 15.
3............................... Petition for Derivation...... 12 400.00 4,800.00
14.............................. Request to Make a Settlement 1 400.00 400.00
Agreement Available.
------------------------------------------------
Total....................... ............................. .............. .............. 54,307,175.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Request for Comments
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or
included in the request for OMB approval of this information
collection. They also will become a matter of public record.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including
hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology.
Marcie Lovett,
Records and Information Governance Division Director, OCTO United
States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-19202 Filed 9-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
